So far you have read research from authors at various stages: you heard from Jeff who is in the coding and analysis stage; you read a data analysis chapter from Andrea and Carol; and you read manuscripts submitted to a journal. How can you relate this to where you currently are in your stage of research, whether it’s generating questions or collecting and coding data? How do these actual pieces of real live research relate to what you have read regarding the how-to of qualitative research? This blog is meant to be critically reflective of your own experiences and to draw on what you are learning in the class.
This class has afforded me a tremendous set of opportunities that have enabled me to appreciate many aspects of the research processes. The variety of readings, data analysis examples and visitors, have brought forth many significant ideas and demonstrated in-situ problem solving. For example, Jeff’s presentation expanded my ideas of what constituted data and was closely aligned with the “Emotions and Fieldwork” book. I really appreciate the fact that even during his session, he was taking into consideration limitations of his analysis - and planned ways to further analyze the data in more critical/comprehensive manners.
ReplyDeleteReading the book chapter from Andrea and Carol, and the subsequent conversation - was amazing! I am not just complimenting their work, but highlighting the way in which I could “see” the connections between the writing, the data (interviews), and the analysis. This process and interaction created an unprecedented opportunity for me. In some ways, this amazing exchange of ideas scared me - after all, the work of the qualitative researcher doesn’t seem to ever achieve completion. On the other hand, I began to understand why Janet and Julie really like doing this type of work (and teaching this type of course). There seems to be this exhilarating experience when complexity is described and explored. Human beings are truly the result of so much more than just genetic variations, we are the interactions of gender, sex, socioeconomic class, race, age, etc. And these contingencies create these emerging/intersecting properties that are interesting, some times unexpected and often beautiful. Having taken part on the reading, discussion and subsequent meta-cognitive debriefing was extraordinary and enlightening.
Lastly, serving as a reviewer for the article has been an empowering endeavor. As I mentioned before, I felt that I had in some ways been allowed to enter the “club”. I realize that I am not yet really part of the “club”, but because of the review I felt that at the very least, I had snuck in through a back door. Moreover, receiving feedback on my review was extremely helpful and I could quickly see several areas (ideas/word choices) that needed improvement. Also, it trying to find suggestions (not just pointing out problems) for the authors, I found a new researcher (and her publications) who I am going to be exploring (as I believe her work relates to my interests).
Overall, this class has been a great avenue to expand my critical thinking and research skills. I cannot believe how much we have done in such a short period of time - now to the hard part, using these new thoughts and skills to improve my proposal and research project. We will soon find out if any of this learning translates to better production in my part - the final paper is due next week!
Having the chance to see these works in action has been very helpful. None of the topics were totally in line with mine, yet I gained a lot from each of them. Jeff’s presentation, along with his description of the processes he has gone through in collecting data (including sharing his papers/permission for IRB etc.) has been very helpful to picture and plan much of my own process. Also, hearing about his organization plan for coding his data was also a very helpful example. It was another useful example of the processes we have been discussing in class (Walcott), creating the chart in a similar way with themes, codes, descriptions, analysis etc. More examples and practice with the process makes me feel more comfortable and confident in my ability to eventually do the same with my own data. Hearing about the on-going back and fourth conversation and analysis Jeff and Julie have been doing together, along with the various points of view and input generated by our class discussion also shows me how important it is to have others view and discuss your data. It seems there is much that can be overlooked when one is looking at their own data for specific things (forest through the trees). It seems important to have other sets of eyes, minds, and points of view to look for important pieces and themes. Discussing Andrea and Carols research, data and writing certainly reiterated and solidified that point. They did their research and analysis together, and still seemed to benefit from additional eyes and minds. The more the merrier it seems.
ReplyDeleteSeeing the way Andrea and Carol are writing up their data and analysis was also very interesting and enlightening for me. I really enjoyed hearing much of their voice intertwined within the analysis process. As an academic writer, I know I personally still struggle with integrating citations and using “other peoples words” in my own writing. I often feel my quotations seem too “cut and paste” because I sometimes still struggle with how to properly integrate citations without copying. Looking at their writing was very helpful to see good examples of how to do that well. Also the discussion of over-quoting, was good to experience. I still wonder about “how many citations I need?” and how many quotes etc. seeing that sometimes less may be more was also helpful to see. Sometimes I know I certainly still feel that ‘imposter syndrome’ and attempt to just put in quotes to compensate, which it seems is not always necessary.
Reading and discussing Carol and Andrea’s chapter also gave me a lot of ideas and directions to check out this summer when I am doing my reading and research for my own study. Andrea spoke a lot about both intersectionality, which I am interested in researching. She also mentioned the importance of “zooming-out” looking at groups separately, not just their overlaps, which makes a lot of sense for my research and study purposes as well. The discussions in that class in particular I feel gave me a lot of ideas for reading which will hopefully help me to build a stronger theoretical frame, and literature review.
Having the chance to see these researchers at different stages has been a very helpful experience. To see Jeff not only showing us what themes and codes he had produced from his data, but to have him give us a chance to read a transcript, watch a video, and walk through the process of finding themes and assigning codes brought the process to life. Doing this gave everything a sharper focus. I can see how the theoretical framework Jeff is using led to the research questions he has, which then brought him to the methods he is using to get data to answer those questions (using the framework to understand that data). It was really interesting to see that Jeff was not locked into anything, but instead was still soliciting ideas and then sometimes pushing back, based on the framework and what he wants to know, which a few times led to more questions from our group. That class activity showed me that the researcher can’t do this in a vacuum. The process isn’t cut and dried, or over because you want it to be. I can see how it (the whole process) can be self-perpetuating, and can lead to unexpected avenues.
ReplyDeleteThen to see how Andrea and Carol were analyzing their data using their two perspectives that have been influenced and shaped by their respective backgrounds was interesting. That showed me the usefulness of having someone else giving their viewpoints on data.
Overall, one of the bigger lessons to come out of this class for me is that I need to get over the habit of making snap judgements or conclusions without looking from different perspectives, and corroborating what I see with related research based evidence.
For me, the most difficult piece was the article review. It was the piece that I spent the most time on trying to get it “right”, trying to balance usable feedback and supportive tone. I still do not feel like I got it right. It is a little bit intimidating to think that someone (outside of the class) might actually see that feedback someday, and when you think about in those terms, the process becomes a little paralyzing. Also, you have to put yourself in this dual mindset of writer and reviewer, where you want to provide helpful feedback, but then imagine how the writer will receive this feedback. In the program, I have had a lot of experience getting feedback, but little experience giving feedback. This is a process that I would like to explore further as I think that it would make me a better writer. I wish there was a way to have your “reviews reviewed” before the actual high stakes of letting them out to the world. I almost think that it should be an elective in the program, “Academic Reviewing” or whatnot where students in the program could develop their academic writing and really explore the process from both sides, and getting into the mind of journal reviewers to explore their process, and what they look for in writing submissions. I really think this is a valuable process, particularly for budding qualitative researcher who don’t write in cold, scientific language like so many quantitative pieces.
ReplyDeleteJeff’s presentation was particularly helpful for me because we are more or less at the same stages in our research (data collection and analysis). Also, we are both researching high schools, so it was interesting to compare methods, and approaches to data collection and analysis. It was also interesting to ask him about his IRB experience, and I think that would be particularly valuable for people in the class who haven’t gone through that process yet. Also, I found his approach to coding much simpler and cleaner than I thought coding had to be. And that was really my primary reason for taking this class. I wanted to see first-hand how someone did their coding process, not just what I had read about in books. That was really a light bulb moment for me, seeing someone walk through their process. I solidified my interest in qualitative research and my desire to really do more of this work.
The Andrea and Carol class was really fascinating to look at their process, particularly the co-authorship workflow, and how to turn a study into a book. There were more questions that I thought of to ask them after the class like: “How did you decide on the audience for this book?” and “How do you write for specific audiences?”. Meaning when you take a study into book format, I would imagine that the audience that you in vision would dictate a lot of the writer tone and voice that you would use. Like writing for an academics versus writing for practitioners, or even writing for the general public. I am really fascinated by the idea of knowledge dissemination, and I think that a lot interesting academic research is unavailable to the lay public unless you are an insider. What I mean by that is, as a school based practitioner, you only see the “what works” (Marzano,etc.) type of watered down research. I really think If we created more pathways from the university to the schools to share knowledge, we could (together) really move things forward.
Overall, this class has really answered a lot of questions for me about qualitative research, and helped me connect the dots. I wish that I had this class early in the program, and that the class was longer. I am fascinated by the depth and richness of qualitative research, and I know that I would have taken every qualitative course that was available.
This course has reinforced my knowledge of data collection, analysis and interpretation with the opportunity to interact with researchers in their present day research collection process. Having Jeff present his project and his innovative methods of data collection highlighted yet another way of recording genuine, reliable information from his participants. Although a bit intimidating to foresee, it was useful to see a colleague immersed in the data collection process, a position I will soon be immersed in. This offered the opportunity to hear his rationale for data collection approaches, his struggles, his successes allowed me to witness the rawness of research, which is a unique experience. This activated some thought, specifically on how I can enhance my own methods in terms of increasing reliability of the data. We, as an audience, read the polished end results of a study without observing the researchers in action.
ReplyDeleteAndrea and Carol again offered the opportunity to be engaged not only with the authors of a study, but with also a very unique topic. I had the chance to deeply analyze their methods for their study but also provide feedback and ask questions related to their process. Myself as a novice researcher appreciate any opportunity to discuss on the moment certain minutia of data collection and analysis that are pertinent to my interests. The advantage of face-to-face interaction with researchers is definitely something I could never obtain from reading a text or research article.
Reviewing research studies and providing meaningful feedback was a challenging, yet fun task. It was challenging at first because after reading them the first time I would easily identify obvious successes or faults, for example the lack of theoretical framework, but have more difficulty identifying smaller, underlying details to critique. Several re-reads were necessary and thinking for logical patterns throughout the study was at times tricky but satisfying when I could articulate the sound parts of the study and those that required further specificity. The more I thought of the study, more and more observations would emerge with less effort. This is good practice in reading future studies to determine accepting or rejecting them as reliable sources as well as paying attention to those similar details in my own studies and reports.
This is my second course dealing with qualitative research. This course provided more opportunity to interact with the “real life” work that others have done or are in the process of doing. I started the course thinking that I would be refining a “new” proposal idea and popping out the other side of the six weeks with a nearly finished product. This wasn’t the case and I am better off for it. Perhaps the area that I can relate to most- or have grown to appreciate most- is the peer scrutiny that is so important in designing research. I have been flying largely solo for too long and been my own critic for too long. I see how far Jeff has come since the summer of 2015 and how appreciative he was of the critical feedback he got in class. This is where I am. Prior to this class (probably the 3rd week of this class), I lacked the confidence to put ideas out there to be scrutinized, critiqued, kicked a little…. I got to witness Andrea and Carol explicitly ask to be kicked. I worked through the discomfort of reading “Reviewer 3” and ultimately came to see her/his words as part of a genuine effort to help someone improve. So- this is where I connect at this stage. In terms of pages written, I am as far away from a completed proposal as I was at the conclusion of EDP 623. That said, I think I am now better equipped to design a study than I have been at any point.
ReplyDeleteAfter completing the research design courses in this program, I felt that designing a study was a pretty straight-forward endeavor. We created studies that we never intended to do and they were technically perfect…lab built…. Neat and clean. I have come to better appreciate the “real world” of designing and doing research that exists outside of the instruction manual. I have built two swing sets in my life. The first was the one you see on display at the store. It comes in a large box with detailed instructions and carefully labelled parts. This was the equivalent of what we accomplish in the “how to” course. I built it to specifications and it still stands in my yard…worn….uglier…but still just as the manufacturer intended. The second swing set is the newest addition to the yard. It took shape much like my questions did this summer. I repeatedly heard, “what do you REALLY want to know?” I was too bound up in writing questions that were technically well written and would stand up to the scrutiny of professors/fellow students/IRB, that I lost sight of why I was asking the question in the first place. This was the swing set #1 approach- designed to fit someone else’s specifications and ultimately didn’t suit my/our needs….led to ultimately having to build a new one. I think the textbook “how to” paired with nearly exclusively reading finished products when we reviewed studies created the false impression that research was a neat process. When I found myself mired in mud and weeds I had a tendency to think that I was experiencing misery that others weren’t. These “actual pieces” and being invited into the world of unfinished work has helped eliminate the myth that there are researchers enter and exit projects without showering or using band aids. Swing set #2 didn’t have a name. It didn’t come with instructions and a whole lot of shit didn’t go as planned when it was getting built. It was, however, the product of a carefully planned design. When the auger hit a rock- we had to adjust but we had a design that could endure (even anticipated) things not working perfectly. So- to make a short story long- it is the messiness that is hidden from us in textbooks that I relate to most.